Introspection and reevaluation — and even a bit of circular firing squad — are necessary after an electoral loss.

But I’m not buying the end of conservatism argument immediately being peddled by pro-Obama media types. It’s just a variation on Operation Demoralize.

There is a full blown attempt to cement in the popular consciousness what data and reality do not necessarily support. This post by Ben Smith at Buzzfeed Politics is typical, Welcome To Liberal America:

The Romney campaign, in fact, bet its last weeks on modeling showing a more Republican, older, and more white electorate — the reversal of the younger, diverse crowds which propelled Barack Obama to the White House four years ago. But in fact the share of 18- to 29-year-old voters increased by a percentage point, while the number of white voters declined by two. Their votes were more balanced this time, but the change has been unmistakable and irreversible.

The groups on whom Obama depended are the ones that are growing; white men, the core Republican constituency, are a shrinking minority. For the first time In 2011, minority births surpassed white births in the United States, and the longer demographic trend places white Americans in the minority by 2041.

The Republican Party will spend much needed time in the wilderness after this election, even as the open race for 2016 unofficially kicks off today. The future of the Grand Old Party will be determined by how well it adapts to the brand-new Liberal America — indeed the Obama America — that is now here to stay.

This is the Operation Demoralize Post-Election Edition. I’ll be posting more in the coming days and weeks, but I don’t see anything right now to suggest a rejection of conservatism, as much as I see a rejection of a particular candidate, very effective use of class and race politics, and the embrace of nanny statism in hard economic times.

The exit polling is far from clear that this was a victory for liberalism, as many groups moved towards Romney relative to 2008 voting for McCain. For example, young people moved right not left:

Notable was a movement towards Obama by Hispanics and Asians, but was that an embrace of liberalism or an embrace of a very effective Obama race narrative?

Addressing those groups which should be natural allies for conservatives must be a priority, but simplistic conclusions about abandoning conservatism are dangerous, and I would urge caution.

I think Noah Rothman, who does great work at Mediaite, is instructive on the “concern trolling” going on in the liberal media:

Reactions

Comments

This election had nothing to do with the legitimacy of conservativism; if it did, then the House would be out of GOP hands. In fact, it expanded.

Further, the only reason the GOP does not even barely control the Senate is because a couple of the candidates plunged head-first into foot-in-mouth syndrome, which I think cost them 3 – 4 points in the polls. They would likely have otherwise been decent Senators.

The key, going forward, for the GOP (and I’m not necessarily speaking at the grassroots level, but definitely at the uppers in the formal org chart) to open up to other ethnic groups. There is a major demographic shift in play, going forward, whereby capturing an overwhelming majority of white people (which Romney did) will not be enough to secure a national office.

It was enough for our current president to be black and liberal. Prosperity was not important. Evidence of success was not important. Blacks didn’t think he had enough time to turn things around and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Rubio is just another Establishment Republican, and they chose a candidate the last two times, and we lost. I’d love to see someone like Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Allen West. Let’s get back to conservatism!

Right you are. IMHO, Rubio is just another ambitious, calculating, self-serving prick. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT? Easy:

Without the Tea Party, Rubio probably would have lost the Primary, badly. Yet he refused to ally with them and wouldn’t join DeMint’s Senate Tea Party group.

If he didn’t want Tea Party support, he should have refused their help (like Romney, who blew us off). Rubio wants it both ways. Not signing on with DeMint means he wants to get an “in” with the RINO Establishment.

I agree with it. There are a lot of Hindsight Napoleons on the Interweb, and I’m really tired of them.

There is a natural…and REALLY unfortunate…trend in human nature to find A human actor to blame for hardship. That can lead us to fixate on the WRONG thing to blame, and fail to really understand the REAL cause for the effect.

This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live. (Deuteronomy 30:19)

As far as the popular vote goes the race was really close. There were approximately 3 million more Obama voters. The problem is they were all in states with high electoral votes.

I wonder if all that is needed is for the conversion of California. California has 55 electoral votes and perhaps if someone made a good case, Californians could be persuaded to vote republican. California used to be a great place. Now it is getting worse and people are leaving.

If they were paternalistic more of them would have listened to the bishops.

The problem with Catholics is poor catechesis. Many simply do not know the tenets of the faith. This is especially true among Mexicans because the Mexican government’s policies from the 1920s onward severely limited the number of priests and nuns. More recent immigrants from Cuba have the same problem.
With American Catholics it stems from over three decades in which education in the faith was downplayed in many dioceses in favor of “more relevant” topics, including liberal politics. The cult of the Kennedys contributed to this. It’s only in recent years that teaching the catechism has made a comeback- along with at least some bishops who challenge purportedly Catholic politicians to live up to all the tenets of their faith, not just the ones the media thinks they like. (Funny how few reporters even know the term subsidiarity.)

Have you read the fine pieces of the last day or two by MacDonald, showing that immigration is way behind social programs and graduated tax to Hispanics in the US? Until you do, STFU.

Have you never considered why “social justice” was a natural fit in modern Catholic dogma? Or that for centuries, the Church upheld patronage in the form of the aristocracy? Or wondered why the Irish, Hispanic, and Italian cultures all foster a “godfather” culture that makes gangs headed by a strong man an integral part of society?

“Have you never considered why ‘social justice’ was a natural fit in modern Catholic dogma? Or that for centuries, the Church upheld patronage in the form of the aristocracy? Or wondered why the Irish, Hispanic, and Italian cultures all foster a “godfather” culture that makes gangs headed by a strong man an integral part of society?”

in 2012, you are talking about Irish gangs headed by a strong man??. Wow. I assume you are writing from the confines of a hospital. Get better, man. And soon.

Why did Hispanics vote for Obama? In 4 years he didn’t give them amnesty. He didn’t give them the dream act. So far he has given them “deferred action” ie he wouldn’t deport illegal aliens 30 years or younger who steered clear of major criminal problems.

What happened? A political narcissistic sociopath leveraged fear and ignorance with a campaign marked by mendacity and malice rather than a mandate for resurgence and reform. Instead of using his high office to articulate a vision for our future, Obama used it as a vehicle for character assassination, replete with unrelenting and destructive distortion, derision, and division.
—Mary Matlin

“data and reality do not necessarily support” ??? Here’s some data and reality:
1. 23 million unemployed
2. 43 straight months of 8+% unemployment
3. 45 million on food stamps
4. black poverty at record hights
5. gas prices doubled and highest sustained prices in country’s history
6. black youth unemployment over 50%
7. hispanic unemployment at 10.3%
8. illegals set to receive $7 billion
9. food prices up more than 25%
10. middle class has lost 1/3 of its net worth
11. worst job creation record since 1945
12. worst economic recovery in 75 years
13. average household income declined $4,300
14. health insurance increases $1,500 under Obama
15. only president to have US credit downgraded (twice)
16. over 100 million people on some form of means tested welfare
17. $6 trillion added to our debt. More than all previous presidents combined.

50% of the electorate ignored that data and reality. My guess is that their spin this was another mandate will gain traction and never be refuted by any entity, especially the weak-kneed GOP. If they have any chance of being elected in 2016, the campaign must begin now.

In any battle, to win, you must cut off the enemy supply lines as part of your strategy. But conservatives love movies, love to watch MSM outlets, buy from Chevy and Chrysler, send their kids to a liberal college, support their local school, etc.

In short, the libs are well fed by our own hand.

You cannot change culture if you do not change yourself. It is what it is. And now that politicians have seen that you can win election by skewering the rich to give to the rest, they will do it in greater number.

Do conservatives have what it takes to change their supportive behavior?

And send letters — typed, formal, snail-mail letters — to the networks and their sponsors explaining exactly WHY you’re not patronizing them. Every few months, send another letter reminding them that a) you object to their ideas; b) you haven’t patronized them since your boycott started.

Libs do this all the time. I’m tired of mealy-mouthed arguments that “it hurts innocent employees.” This is war, a Civil War, and we’d better win it.

That’s somewhat encouraging I guess, but regarding Hispanics and Asians moving toward Obama not being a move to liberalism, I would argue that if you buy into the race narrative, then you have bought into liberalism, since race along with abortion is a cornerstone of the ideology.

I agree 100% with this. Romney was a horrible candidate. With no core principals. He came across as a used car salesman with his demeanor being best described as, “What Do I Have to Do To Put You In This BMW Today?”. And he speaks conservatism as if he just learned it last week in Rosetta Stone. The “electability” argument pushed on us by the RINO crowd is bankrupt on both philosophical and practical grounds. It destroyed our party’s soul and guaranteed defeat. Two years after energy from the Tea Party swept Republicans back into congressional power, a politician who embodied the antithesis of that spirit was our nominee. This was regress, not progress, and the GOP payed a severe price for the Faustian bargain of “electability” that supposedly entailed. A party that chooses power over principle will lose both and it did.

Romney under performed McCain by 3 million votes. As Rush was talking about today.

Not being able to win a D+3 is a major liability to a Republican nominee. We just lost a national election for a nominee that could not close the distance on a D+3 turn out. The next President is going to need to be able to win Florida, Virginia and Ohio. If you can win a close race, you can’t win the President spot.

The real bad bargain here was when Romney sought to appease the hard right and picked Ryan to be the VP. This choice alienated many non-hard righters and gave the DEM endless fodder for attacks. And it did not help Romney at all.

This deal for Ryan was supposed to pay Romney back with a energized conservative base and a big turnout. That never happened. A large, costly miscalculation.

I viewed the Ben Smith piece as him wanting to rub conservative noses in it and simultaneously take a victory lap on behalf of his fellow journolisters for successfully helping Obama get re-elected. They want to force the Republican Party even further left. It’s a never ending desire for them, and they see this electoral defeat as an opportunity to try. It’s a version of “never let a crisis go to waste”.

As I said in the prior thread, Axelrod and Messina outplayed the Romney campaign on tactics. They did a better job micro-targeting and data analytics to identify their voters and get them jazzed and out to vote.

I’m bored with all this analysis I’m seeing on conservative websites. I just need to know where I can sign up for all my free sh*t. The country has spoken and “free sh*t” is what it said, so who am I to argue?

I already qualify for food stamps and Medicaid so I might as well hop on the gravy train. All you taxpayers are suckers.

It’s not just liberals who are doing the demoralizing. The day after the election some GOP elite seem to suggest conservatives need to shift to a liberal/progressive-appeasement mode (aka: bi-partisanship, compromise, etc.) and more fully embrace and more swiftly move in the direction of liberal/progressive-lite. Essentially the same message the progressives are putting forth which is there is no room for conservative values or principles in a progressive America. I don’t know about everyone else but I’m not in the mood for appeasement or abandoning anything except maybe GOP leadership.

Conservative values are not ‘targeted’ towards a certain ‘demographic’ as is the democrat’s messaging. Conservative values are universal. We esteem rights that are natural, not granted to us by some bureaucracy, like HHS or the U.N, but they can certainly infringe on those rights, and people cannot vote away those rights in an election.

The down vote crowd is out in full force. Must protect the RINO Romney at all costs. Because I dared say he was a bad candidate, the “down votes came out in force”

Face reality. I was warning about Romney long before he was nominated, said he could not win because he had ZERO core principals.

That Romney is a corny businessman of narrow learning and culture wouldn’t be so deadly if he had actually harbored conservative convictions. But he didn’t. He has been taught how to play a semi-conservative Republican on TV, but his deepest instincts always remained liberal. Hence, his dogged pride in Romneycare, legislation that Barack Obama himself would have fathered had he governed the Bay State.

I said he could WIN, but when he lost he vindicated my original view in the primaries that – while Romney could win a landslide race if the bottom dropped out of Obama – he could not win a close race:

What I wrote during the primaries:

“Romney is a terrible general election candidate, as he has ZERO core principles, he will need a lot of good fortune and outside help to end up winning, and…just about anybody will be able to beat Obama in those circumstances.

That’s true when I called out some people said to stop living in a cocoon. The down vote brigade pounced hard. I think my comment got like 30 down votes. Just because I said “All the polls are bad for Romney, all can’t be wrong, but all are bad”

Immediately I was called an idiot. And assured that “Dick Morris and Barone and Rove said he would win so it’s a lock”

Romney’s savage behavior during Primary season deeply upset a lot of Gingrich/Santorum conservatives. That may explain low turnout. They Powers That Be will never admit it, not even to themselves, but it’s a strong possibility.

Personal observation: I think Rush Limbaugh was all-in for Romney from the get-go, and may pay for it dearly. He’s already spinning about how “we’re surrounded” and “Romney ran a great campaign.”

Let’s think back. Limbaugh didn’t start pushing Santorum until Gingrich was threatening Romney’s chances. Limbaugh was surprisingly blase about Gingrich/Santorum splitting the conservative vote to give us Romney. Limbaugh chortled about Romney’s negative attack ads against Gingrich (“Negative ads, work folks!” “The long knives are out for Newt!” “He’s really defining ol’ Newt here, folks!”) and did not fact-check the lies, while condemning Gingrich for responding in kind; Limbaugh also took part in the contemptible coordinated hit on Gingrich the Friday before the FL primary. Limbaugh snapped the heads off people who complained about Romney’s tactics.

Yep. I think lots of conservative media types who took out Cain and Newt to get us Romney are going to pay a very heavy price. There needs to be a real reckoning here.

Question. Did you actually do any real work to help elect Romney such as talking him up with non political family and friends, work a phone bank, go door to door or even just place a sign in your window or a bumper sticker on your car?

I ask because it sure seems to me that you spend most of your time posting the same stuff over and over again at conservative websites telling us all how stupid we are. I hope you at least hit the tip jars to pay for all the bandwidth.

Obama has always been lucky. Mother nature supplied him with an October Surprise named Sandy and he ran with it. That bogus photo op with Christie allowed him to appear at just the right moment what many of his 2008 supporters wanted him to be -competent, moderate and bi-partisan. Obama then followed it up with a big ad buy that most people here would find risible but which worked with his base-the Colin Powell endorsement. It talked about the bogus recovery and again made Obama seem competent and bipartisan to the know nothings.

Romney was left in the position of the Mr. Nice Guy fiance of the woman who just heard her bad boy ex was out of rehab, wants a second chance and promises it will all be different this time. Hope triumphed over experience that last week. And you wonder why single women tend to prefer Democrats. No judgement.

On the Latino shift left, I think that is real. I think the notion of Latinos as socially conservative is over-wrought, they are family oriented but not in a purely conservative way — they have already shifted left on gay marriage substantially in the last 4 years.

I think we continue to miss on the social and cultural cues as to how to frame our arguments. Breitbart hit it on this one. As a result, we play defense, as opposed to making the case. Let’s hope the Rubios, Cruzs, Jindals and others start to give us good, well-articulated conservative messages to take forward, vs. the Akins — but we need to do this ourselves. For our cause to be a noble one, we have to make noble arguments about (a la Arthur Brooks and others).

On Asians, we are losing badly in the tech and science communities, which are certainly have a higher proportion of Asians … Again, it is a cultural war that shapes the agenda that we are losing. I deal with articles like this being posted all the time in the online communities that are apart of my business:

The theme always: Democrats good, Repubs crazy old fools against … video games, against science, against technology progress, etc. Sometimes we win on things like SOPA, but we don’t make an effort to stake this space out consistently and get credit. And when Repubs do, as on SOPA, I see an almost immediate Democratic response and concerns. Vice-versa, I never see. The cultural/media battle is a part of this …

Anyway, 4 long years to shift through the data and work on the platform and GOTV effort …

Dumbest thing ever posted here by far. Asians voted for GW bush at 64% all of a sudden they are turned off by “science” Is that code for “global warming?” No Asians are turned off because Romney couldn’t articulate an inspiring message.

Bush won 44% hispanics, and 64% Asians how did he do it?

He campaigned as a conservative, even though he never really was one.

Hispanics are NOT a bloc. There are different interests. Cubans like me, we are a natural gop constituency because we know the horrors of socialism and communism.

Bush also campaigned in those communities himself instead of just using surrogates. His Texican Spanish probably amused Cubanos but the point is he made the effort.

Both Gore and Kerry also had the tight ass white liberal problem. I have seen Gore work a room. He is more wooden in person than on TV and this was among affluent urban liberals. Among a crowd that wasn’t just like him I suspect he was even stiffer. You know the type, they talk the diversity talk but are noticeably uncomfortable outside their milieu. It completely undercuts the message. Having spent a lot of time in rural Texas Bush is more at home in the presence of real diversity. The Hispanics and Asians picked up on that.

So do you speak up to counter the stereotypes or do you just let such bigoted remarks pass?

Such ignorance is usually best countered with a polite statement that turns the offenses back against the bigot. For that is what we are dealing with. More than once when I lived in Chicago I’d hear a professional colleague rant about the uncouth, stupid Religious Right. I’d let them rant. At the end I’d simply ask, “You do know that I consider myself a Christian Conservative, don’t you?” That always embarrassed them.

The stupidity of these self described enlightened people is astounding. At the last firm I worked for I called on the Partner in Charge of Personnel. She was appalled to learn both employees of the firm’s Human Resource Department had used such bigoted labels as “ignorant rednecks” and “trailer trash Republicans” while discussing the news over lunch in the employee lunchroom with a dozen other people present. We bring clients in there from time to time! One of the offenders was actually a lawyer from a top notch law school-Northwestern. That six years out she had sunk to being an HR assistant at a regional CPA firm pretty much says everything. Yet she believed she possessed superior intellect.

What is overlooked for obvious reasons is how people react and vote during a time of prolonged recession. Fairly obvious when we think about it for a minute that people exposed to a long economic downturn suddenly may be a bit kinder to the notion of expanded government than they are during “good times”
Its all about the economy with people. And Democrats and Republican “thinkers” had best not read too much into this past election. I refuse to accept that there has been some sea change in the electorate. Lets not for get that same electorate gave Bush a win in 2004.
After another 4 years of Obama a Republican will once again look pretty good compared to the Rock Star Presidency.
And lets be mindful of a stubborn fact: If the nation has suddenly lurched left as Dems like to pitch? Explain Reagan and others elected after FDR.

Lemme add. Im not going to waste time overthinking what happened with Romney. The simple bottom line is he failed to get the voters that left Obama after 2008. He for whatever reason didnt appeal to a large group of folks.
Hard to run against the political equivalant of Mick Jagger that the dems protect at all costs with media help.

For what it’s worth. Observation. Part of what we’re dealing with here might be what could be termed the first “day-care generation”. The generation which has been spoon-fed the progressive way of thinking and interacting since birth. No chance to develop a sense of themselves as individuals during those critical years. Denied the opportunity to navigate and explore the world as an individual, condemned to a life of unthinking coghood from this generation forward! I know, melodramatic. But the long-term solution is pre-K to 12 education and injecting an equal and accurate depiction of conservative principles.

This is just silly. Some of you, LITERALLY, want reality embargoed. You want the full cocoon, not the three-quarters cocoon a partisan advocacy blog already is.

I’d hope as conservatives you want the cold hard truth. Well maybe not cold and hard, you could heat it up just a bit and soften it with a mallet. But lukewarm and hard to chew is OK. Wouldn’t you rather know and be anxious about it rather than saying “WTH! we had this in the bag!” on election night.

The down vote brigade pounced HARD and with a vengeance. Assured me that some parody site called “unskewed polls” was showing Romney up big. And that Barone, and Rove, and Morris all said Romney would win in a landslide and they can’t be wrong!!

I think everyone going to WI/PA probably means that both camps think it’s possible O is winning Ohio, which would make WI/PA very very important to the Romney camp. It’s just anecdotal. However, it’s becoming unrealistic to keep assuming that every single poll out of OH has to be wrong. In 2008, we played this wishcasting, the polls are screwed game and lost, but we’re a lot closer than we were in 2008.

I hope we win this but I am again getting eeyorish. I wonder if Ohioans are still among America’s least educated for 2012.

I took a look at the breakdown table at WaPo, there was nothing too remarkable until I got to the gender breakout, Romney won both married men and women, loses single men, all by moderate margins, but looses unmarried women 61% to 30%. Unmarried women constitute 23% of the voters, meaning Obama is about +10,000,000 votes in this demographic, way more than he won the election by. Clearly, this is how the election was won, and explains why there were so many Obama and Warren ads on Daytime TV last time I got my car serviced and had to wait for it.

So we need find a way to talk to them (very hard; most of them are hard-core lefties) or make it up elsewhere.

If not for slick and highly divisive “micro-targeting,” he’d have lost. The problem with that stuff is it doesn’t always work. With a strong candidate who fought back and counter-attacked Obama, it would have been much harder. Also, Sandy and Christie (grrr) gave him a huge boost.

I agree. The funny thing is a lot of them would actually like to be married. One problem is they often have poor judgement as to how they can achieve that goal. In that way their love life mirrors their politics.

The bottom line is that that there are now more socialist (takers) that makers. People will always vote for more free stuff. That is now irreversible as I see it. Once you spoil that cat, you cannot unspoil it. America needs a good long famine to starve some sense back into the obese American psyche.

Announcement

Newsletter

Morning Insurrection

Get the latest from Legal Insurrection each morning plus exclusive Cyber Insurrection and Author Quick Hits!